The Stripling Episode - Harvey & Lee: A Critical Review

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Frank Kudlaty says that his boss at the time was principal Weldon Lucas. 

He told this to John Armstrong.

https://harveyandlee.net/FBI/FBI.html

Elsewhere, however, we have Kudlaty relaying he’d received the call from the school principal, Harry Wylie:

Kudlaty:  I believe it was Harry Wylie, you know I...that’s the only person who would have told...who would have called me, because that would have been the chain of command, you know......

Q: And who was Harry Wylie?

Kudlaty:  The Principal.

 

I don't know whose mistake it is, but in Armstrong's book the principal is Weldon Lucas. Same thing on this page of Jim's website.

https://harveyandlee.net/FBI/FBI.html

But on the Kudlaty interview the principal is Harry Wylie. Same thing on this page of Jim's website:

http://harveyandlee.net/School/Stripling.html
 

Good catch Robert! You did something useful.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Excellent piece of research, Mark!

But we all know what's coming, don't we? Three ... two ... one ...

What about the Bolton Ford incident?

What about the Texas Theater?

What about the 13-inch head?

(Repeat ad nauseam)

P.S. I'll take back the comment I made on the other Stripling thread about there being only one witness with a clear recollection of Oswald attending the school, namely Schubert. We can now cross her off the list too.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Nothing anyone can say or do can alter the obvious facts that Robert Oswald told the local newspaper before the assassination and swore to the WC after the assassination that LHO attended Stripling School.

So you keep saying. Mark and others have presented evidence to show that these "obvious facts" are the result of a perfectly understandable but mistaken assumption by Robert Oswald. If there's a plausible everyday explanation for something, use it. These "obvious facts" are worthless. How about dealing with the points Mark made?

As several people have pointed out, here and elsewhere, how come the overseers of the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme let Robert Oswald give away the plot not once but twice? He let the doppelganger cat out of the Stripling bag to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and then again several years later in front of the Warren Commission, no less! What sort of clown-car top-secret doppelganger scheme was this?

Quote

their best hope of conclusively countering it all would be to pressure the Star-Telegram to print a formal retraction.

It has been conclusively countered. Read Mark's original post. If you can find faults in what he's written, tell us what he got wrong.

And why on earth would the newspaper want to print a formal retraction? It's not as though they've libelled anyone! Years ago, they printed an utterly trivial mistaken recollection that harmed no-one. The only people who care are 'Harvey and Lee' believers (as well they should).

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't know whose mistake it is, but in Armstrong's book the principal is Weldon Lucas. Same thing on this page of Jim's website.

https://harveyandlee.net/FBI/FBI.html

But on the Kudlaty interview the principal is Harry Wylie. Same thing on this page of Jim's website:

http://harveyandlee.net/School/Stripling.html
 

Good catch Robert! You did something useful.

 

Finally.... a useful criticism.  I'll ask John A. about this ASAP.  Thanks!

[Jim Hargrove]

Since the OP talked much about the "defection photo...."  From HarveyandLee.net:

Evolution of the "Defection" Photo

A substantial amount of work by unknown persons went into developing what ultimately became the 1959 "defection" photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" that was published in the Nov. 1, 1959 edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

 

Poor quality image of Lee Oswald in Japan, probably taken by George "Hans" Wilkens	Here, a better verison of the photo has been retouched to eliminate background from head area	Image now has added lines and apparent facial altering

 

This washed-out photo of Lee Oswald was published by the Fort  Worth Star-Telegram when Harvey Oswald "defected." It resembles the original "Hans" Wilkens photo above, but with the background removed and some facial features altered.	The photo above was purchased by the author from AP/World Wide Photos.  The typed label to the left indicates: "This is a retransmission of FW1 of Nov. 1 to provide better copy."   Associated Press/Wide World Photos

 

This evidence of photo manipulation begs the obvious questions: Who did it and for what purpose?   Who  managed to get the odd version of the original photo placed in the Fort Worth newspaper?

Few individuals in the days before computers became commonplace had the skills to make such alterations, or in this case the motivation to do so.  A newspaper or wire service would have access to people with the required photo retouching and alteration abilities, but it is difficult to imagine why such an organization would have any interest in making these odd modifications.  An intelligence agency, on the other hand, intent on creating a fog of public perception around an undercover agent being sent to the Soviet Union on assignment, would have every reason--and certainly the ability--to make these strange alterations.  In the years since the Kennedy assassination, it has also been learned that the CIA had numerous "elite media assets" placed with many U.S. print and electronic media news organizations.  Many of these assets would have had the ability to to slip the odd "defection" photograph into the public record.

[Jim Hargrove]

The H&L critics are here to declare “Case Closed” on LHO’s Stripling School attendance regardless of what the evidence shows.  It was all a big misunderstanding, don’t you know? 

The H&L critics claim that the Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty, who said he gave LHO’s Stripling records to the FBI hours after the assassination, was either lying or profoundly mistaken.

The critics claim that Robert Oswald was just guessing that LHO attended Stripling when he was quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1959 and again in 1962 saying that LHO attended Stripling school a year or so before entering the Marine Corps.  The H&L critics ignore the fact that in 1956 Robert, Marguerite, and LHO lived at 4936 Collinwood in Fort Worth, just ten blocks or so from Stripling School, when Robert and LHO undoubtedly compared notes about their Stripling attendance experiences (Robert in 1948, LHO in 1954).  Robert certainly wasn’t guessing about LHO’s Stripling attendance.

The H&L critics claim that the Star-Telegram article published two days after the assassination was wrong when it stated LHO attended Stripling.  Ditto for the Star Telegram stories of 2002 and 2017, both of which said LHO attended Stripling.

They claim Stripling student Fran Schubert was wrong in her clear memory that she watched LHO walk the short distance home from the school to 2220 Thomas Place, just across the street from Stripling, where Marguerite lived on several occasions, including when JFK was killed.

They claim to not understand what Stripling principal Ricardo Galindo meant when he told John Armstrong that it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling.

They ignore Marguerite’s statement in the 11/15/59 Star-Telegram that LHO “quit school at 14 …. he quit in the eighth grade ….. but was so set on getting an education, he quit and returned three times,” and apparently want people to think this matches the Official Record without Stripling School.

They ignore the evidence, claiming it is just a “distraction,” that just one year before Stripling the two LHOs attended school simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans.

The H&L critics cannot even CONSIDER ACCEPTING the clear evidence that LHO attended Stripling School because they know that, if they do, they have to accept there were two different young men sharing the identity of LHO, just as John Armstrong has shown again and again.  That is why the H&L critics are working so hard in their unsuccessful attempts to debunk the Stripling evidence.  If they accept it, they admit there were two LHOs!

[Mark Stevens]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You guys crack me up. You seem to think that witnesses should be accepted if their testimony is true, but thrown out if it is false. Well, yeah, that would be great... if only it were feasible.

In practice, all one can do is try to assess the credibility of the witnesses and remove any found not to be credible.

Since even credible witnesses make mistakes, one needs to find additional witnesses to the same event (or some other evidence) so that they can corroborate each other's testimony.

 

It is feasible, and it is exactly what I've done, I've assessed the credibility of the witness and removed any found not to be reliable.

With that, there is no one who witnesses the same event (or some other evidence), period. These people all saw entirely different things which has been pieced together in a desperate attempt to prop up the Hungarian boy story.

No matter how you try to cobble the tales together, they aren't pieces of the same puzzle. You, like Jim, continuing to say they are evidence and continuing to say they support Stripling  without actually explaining how doesn't make it so.

If I am mistaken, show it.

Don't talk about it, be about it.

I've tried to give an honest, genuine assessment of Stripling and this is how Harvey & Lee supporters act?

Noted.

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The H&L critics are here to declare “Case Closed” on LHO’s Stripling School attendance regardless of what the evidence shows.  It was all a big misunderstanding, don’t you know? 

I am doing do because until you or literally anyone actually refute anything I've stated, then the words stand.

Quote

The H&L critics claim that the Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty, who said he gave LHO’s Stripling records to the FBI hours after the assassination, was either lying or profoundly mistaken.

I've addressed this in my OP, apparently you haven't actually read it and are only copying and pasting the same information once again. Can you refute my analysis of Kudlaty's statements?

Quote

The critics claim that Robert Oswald was just guessing that LHO attended Stripling when he was quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1959 and again in 1962 saying that LHO attended Stripling school a year or so before entering the Marine Corps.  The H&L critics ignore the fact that in 1956 Robert, Marguerite, and LHO lived at 4936 Collinwood in Fort Worth, just ten blocks or so from Stripling School, when Robert and LHO undoubtedly compared notes about their Stripling attendance experiences (Robert in 1948, LHO in 1954).  Robert certainly wasn’t guessing about LHO’s Stripling attendance.

I've addressed this in my OP, apparently you haven't actually read it and are only copying and pasting the same information once again. Can you refute my analysis of Robert Kudlaty's statements?

Quote

The H&L critics claim that the Star-Telegram article published two days after the assassination was wrong when it stated LHO attended Stripling.  Ditto for the Star Telegram stories of 2002 and 2017, both of which said LHO attended Stripling.

I've addressed this in my OP, apparently you haven't actually read it and are only copying and pasting the same information once again. Can you refute my analysis of the Star--Telegram reporting?

Quote

They claim Stripling student Fran Schubert was wrong in her clear memory that she watched LHO walk the short distance home from the school to 2220 Thomas Place, just across the street from Stripling, where Marguerite lived on several occasions, including when JFK was killed.

This isn't what I said, but not only do you not know but you also don't care. At this point, between Armstrong's sports cars and whatever you get out of this, you all are too invested in this tale to allow any piece to wither.

Would you care to refute what I actually said about Schubert, or will you keep putting out imaginary fires?

Quote

They claim to not understand what Stripling principal Ricardo Galindo meant when he told John Armstrong that it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling.

I understand quite well. Galindo is a xxxx or never said that. I have shown how no "common knowledge" of Oswald attending Stripling actually existed. Would you care to refute this analysis, or just repeat the statement again? Kind of like "Bloody Mary," I guess if you just stay it enough times Galindo will appear and exclaim "common knowledge," scaring all young disbelievers of Harvey & Lee.

Quote

They ignore Marguerite’s statement in the 11/15/59 Star-Telegram that LHO “quit school at 14 …. he quit in the eighth grade ….. but was so set on getting an education, he quit and returned three times,” and apparently want people to think this matches the Official Record without Stripling School.

I may have "ignored" this, I'm not sure if it's part of the articles I've posted. Whatever she said has no bearing on Stripling, and is why I haven't included it in this OP. If there is some post where this is being discussed, or maybe a thread about cookbooks and you'd like to derail it by talking about that topic instead, point me there and I'll have at it.

Quote

 

They ignore the evidence, claiming it is just a “distraction,” that just one year before Stripling the two LHOs attended school simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans.

The H&L critics cannot even CONSIDER ACCEPTING the clear evidence that LHO attended Stripling School because they know that, if they do, they have to accept there were two different young men sharing the identity of LHO, just as John Armstrong has shown again and again.  That is why the H&L critics are working so hard in their unsuccessful attempts to debunk the Stripling evidence.  If they accept it, they admit there were two LHOs!

 

I have ignored nothing. You are making a post on a thread where I examine the evidence.

You are ignoring the evidence and claiming it just "exists." No need to verify, no need to establish truth, they said it man, don't you get it?

I've considered it, and had an open mind. The story as presented by Armstrong though does not make sense, as the evidence shows. 

Please refute the analysis of the evidence. Posting the evidence repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly does not make the statements true.

At some point you are going to have to be a man and actually look at the evidence, you can't keep posting it forever without actually critically examining it, can you?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

To Mark Stevens:

You and the other H&L critics are free to spin the Stripling School evidence any way you wish for as long as you desire.  But you simply cannot make that evidence go away.  I stand by that evidence, and see no point in arguing the details with you since you and the other H&L critics will always claim victory no matter what I say.

Nothing you have said makes me doubt in any way that one LHO attended Stripling School, a fact which is supported by so much evidence.  I will continue to present that evidence, which includes five Fort Worth newspaper articles, sworn testimony by Robert Oswald, two videotaped interviews and written descriptions of other witness recollections presented in H&L.  You can do as you wish.
 

EDIT: If you'd like to consider some of your arguments one at a time, why not post one below, and I'd be happy to discuss it.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

On 7/18/2020 at 11:42 AM, Mark Stevens said:

The following day reporters went to Robert Oswald’s home and again interviewed him. In this article Robert Oswald makes the following statement regarding Oswald:

(Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1959)

No mention of Stripling is mentioned in this article. At this point, it would appear that Robert Oswald did not repeat his earlier statement regarding Stripling. If he did not repeat the statement, it is possible this was because he knew his statement was in error. In any event, the statement was not repeated.

I'll start.  This hardly makes Robert's statement that LHO attended Stripling an error.  Why would you assume that?  Arlington Heights High was the last school LHO attended before enlisting.  Because Robert didn't mention Lily B. Clayton, or PS 44, or Beauregard, does that mean LHO didn't attend those schools?  This is a nonsensical argument.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Finally.... a useful criticism.  I'll ask John A. about this ASAP.  Thanks!

Actually, all my posts have been useful in illuminating what’s weak about H&L.  

Which is why you find them unwelcome.  They’ve exposed the paucity of sane argument underpinning too much of H&L.  

You’ve had no additional light to shed on the sane and meticulous dismantling of your weak evidence.  Which you have now admitted by saying “we have what we have.”

Yes we know.  It wasn’t enough 20 years ago, and still isn’t today.  Posting it thrice daily actually hurts your credibility more than helps it.  Focus on answers to questions asked, not just repetitive derp.

Q: What you and Sandy refer to as “useful” and “a good catch” - Frank Kudlaty’s mistake, fatal to his credibility, and Armstrong’s let me add  - isn’t just something that John Armstrong ought to have caught before publishing.

It’s something YOU should have caught in your twenty year career as John’s carny barker.  Had you cast a critical eye toward your own H&L “evidence” you too could have made a “good catch” and proved yourselves “useful.”

How is it that you, yourselves, know so little about the stuff you push so much?  How is it that you can browbeat critics for not understanding the complexity of the hypothesis when you don’t understand the simplicity with which it comes undone?  And because H&L is so rickety a contraption, each weakness revealed merely reduces the credibility further.

How is it that Mark Stevens can dismantle Stripling in its entirety in a single meticulous post?  He did the work you SHOULD have done, but didn’t.

Your fallback of “we have the evidence we have” should be updated to admit “we started with little, but we still have a bit left.”  

It would be more accurate.  If accuracy is your aim.

Do continue.

 

[Mark Stevens]

3 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

It’s something YOU should have caught in your twenty year career as John’s carny barker.  Had you cast a critical eye toward your own H&L “evidence” you too could have made a “good catch” and proved yourselves “useful.”

I believe this summarizes the overall issue quite well.

The Harvey & Lee supporters all have pushed these statements for years, I don't know if it is 20, but I believe for Hargrove it is at least 15. 

You all didn't see this clear contradiction the literal first time you read the statements, and then heard the interview? 

Haven't you all read any of this, or do you just take Armstrong's word for it?

Why is that for the Beauregard records, we must examine literally every block and every character on the sheet of paper, but when it comes to Stripling we won't examine the statements, we'll accept them at face value.

Why do you all accept the statements at face value and refuse to scrutinize the details, but do not take the records at face value, and instead scrutinize the details?

If you are going to have a so called critical eye, shouldn't you be equally critical to all claims? Or, do you inherently believe some without question, and feel it necessary to question others. What do you base this on scale of belief on?

I'd much rather have some threshold for belief which makes it unnecessary for me to validate another person's claims. You know, something like "if x=y(*C+E/my lack of understanding)+A". What is your threshold/formula/method you use? I waste so much time researching and learning for myself whether events are true, it would be much easier to just believe without question. Can you help me build an Excel sheet with variables in place, I can just plug a claim into the formula and let it tell me whether I should research it? Is your system built on a different method?

I feel like I am equally critical to all claims, even ones I take at face value to be true. I still look into them and determine they are actually true. I try my best to not let any actual or perceived bias influence my analysis, of any situation. Not worthwhile for Harvey & Lee supporters?

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

It is feasible, and it is exactly what I've done, I've assessed the credibility of the witness and removed any found not to be reliable.

 

How did you assess their credibilities? You'd have to know if they were prone to lying, had criminal record, etc.. Something of that nature to impugn their character.
 

[Mark Stevens]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I'll start.  This hardly makes Robert's statement that LHO attended Stripling an error.  Why would you assume that?  Arlington Heights High was the last school LHO attended before enlisting.  Because Robert didn't mention Lily B. Clayton, or PS 44, or Beauregard, does that mean LHO didn't attend those schools?  This is a nonsensical argument.

I believe it's quite sensible, if you actually focus on what I said instead of inflating my comments to change their meaning. 

I clearly stated it was a possibility, and it is in fact a possibility. 

As I stated, regardless of why it wasn't repeated, the fact is that it wasn't repeated.

When you pay attention to the actual words, the meaning is clear. I don't know why you would attempt to twist them. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As several people have pointed out, here and elsewhere, how come the overseers of the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme let Robert Oswald give away the plot not once but twice? He let the doppelganger cat out of the Stripling bag to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and then again several years later in front of the Warren Commission, no less! What sort of clown-car top-secret doppelganger scheme was this?

Jeremy, don't forget that the overseers of the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme also allowed the "fake" Marguerite Oswald to give an interview to a local journalist!